Thursday, April 18, 2013

We're All David Sirota Now

So taking a giant, ugly, self-absorbed dump on the cover of Salon did, in fact, succeed in winning for Mr. Sirota his heart's desire: High-profile attention which (bonus!) press-gangs everyone else into his ego vortex whether they volunteered for the mission or not.

And, by the way, what is really… It is. It’s hilarious. Here’s this guy; he’s a liberal. He’s wringing his hands. He’s all worried about increased surveillance. He’s all worried about the erosion of civil liberties, and who is it that’s out there demanding more cameras today? Who is it that’s saying cities need more cameras to be able to spy on more people and their activities? It’s Mayor Doomberg, is it not?

I’m sure every other liberal Democrat politician agrees, and yet these liberal writers at these websites are convinced that it’s still George W. Bush that wants to encroach on their civil liberties and spy on ‘em. So stop and think. By the way, this guy, Sirota? He’s not a lone wolf. I guarantee you that his piece here represents the thinking of about 110% of the American left. “Oh, my God, if it’s anything but a white guy, oh, are we in trouble!”

12 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Droneglass attacks his fellow liberals not for their groveling loyalty to the "commander-in-chief" - but for the few shreds of decency a few can still muster in (meekly) criticising (some of) his more egregious crimes.

Holy crap, everyone please get a fair and balanced, or is it biased and balanced?

My god. You have to see that what passes for liberal is in the same vortex as all the things you love to hate.

To deny is to affirm. Just as the essential dialectical debacle of atheism is that it seems to reject "God". It's a stripe of dogmatism that can't live without the thing it rejects.

Endless blathering about how awful a thinker David Brooks is, and how unfair it is that he gets so much attention will always be a morass of giving him more attention. Being right is specifically uninteresting aspect of the solution spaces for our collective pathos, unless it's connected to a movement to do something better.

Apparently, this is about a lot more than being a better conservative.

Different anonymous guy: Completely agree with the "holy crap" guy. What the heck happened to you Drift? Greenwald and Hayes are Obama apologists? That is downright false, and stupid. I've never idolized anyone (well, except Walter Payton but that doesn't count) but you have a bug up your… What's next? The Young Turks are a bunch of Obama loving libs? Are you suddenly a paid shill or is your stuff so sarcastic and opposite-like that we just just don't get it? (No one cares about about David Brooks. Yes, I skip right by that stuff.)

2. David Sirota and Glenn Greenwald only care about their careers in the media. They manipulate libertarians and progressives pet issues like they are playing tunes to sell books and get on TV.

3. Chris Hayes absolutely deserves criticism for leaning on Sirota over and over again, as Sirota is generally self-absorbed, misogynist mansplainer in the vein of William Saletan. He's DC through and through.

4. David Brooks is on NPR all the time. David Brooks is wrong about everything. David Brooks is a Republican apologist and does all he can to put the velvet glove on the iron fist. David Brooks wields influence on the NY Times Op-Ed page, and people need to know who he is, his history, and why he's a vile human being, instead of him just being some omnipresent "voice" with which the general public simply nods in agreement.

5. There is no such thing as true conservatism in America. There is a movement based on the defense of privilege, theocratic laws, authoritarian impulses, pure commercial opportunism, and a hatred of liberals, who are responsible for most of the social progress in the past century. To blather about dialectics and dogmatism and "true solutions" is simply a more complicated way of saying "Both Sides Do It." Because those God-denying atheists, they're just like the God-bothering Christians they hate, amirite? Yup, my facile assertion conveniently makes me feel ideologically pure and puts me on a pedestal above any and all debate, because instead of making a hard decision, I can simply strut my moral superiority of not making any decisions at all, and live my life as a pure apolitical innocent who has no opinions about anything. Groovy, man.

Droneglass isn't a liberal, as anyone who has the ability to operate Google will discover.

Not only is he not a liberal, he's a libertarian who "writes for" Koch-owned Cato Institute, which is where he's getting his talking points and his tactics and it is why he can't get his facts straight.

As to this polished turd: "Obama, Guantánamo, and the enduring national shame"

Greenwald flat out lies to our faces yet again:

"No matter how many times MSNBC tells you Obama has no responsiblity for the ongoing Gitmo disgrace, it won't be true"

Google begs to differ. Entering the search term "Congress blocks Guantanamo closure" returns no less than 2,160,000 results which clearly indicate that Glenn Greenwald is lying. Either he can't read, is astonishingly incompetent as a journalist, or is diliberately put out misleading propagnada.

I'm going with number 3.

David Siroto, meanwhile, appears content to serve as drone boy's water carrier and is of no use to anyone other than Greenwald.

Hey kfreed, i won't argue your other points since the are steeped in the stupid, but one little bone of contention here. You see the whole premise surrounding your inattention to detail is not so much the moving of the prisoners, or even the closing of the facility, in Guantanamo and moving it to the midwest, but "enduring national shame" is the continued use and approval of indefinite detention for people never charged and some of them cleared of any wrong doing, and yet still being incarcerated. Indefinitely. That seems like something to be ashamed of. Try and google that one, smart guy.